I’m not disagreeing with you at all about that–many rapdly growing cities have exactly this problem.

===Is that ok as long as what they end up using the building for ok? That’s my issue.

I see your point about signage now. I’m guessing my Best Buy/Circuit City example is pretty relevant here. And I agree, if a zoning board let’s the signage issues slide just because the basic zoning is okay, they should do that–I know of cases where Bloomingdale has threatened to not allow occupancy up to everything, but the zoning, but most cities won’t do that–they cave. We have no disagreement there and developers use it as leverage. The answer to that is to not back down.

But again it looks like with some of the forms they filed with the city related to singage and other things they didn’t fill them out with the information they had.

Is that ok as long as what they end up using the building for ok? That’s my issue.

Can’t lie, not really glad to have them in the neighborhood for a host of reasons. Didn’t shed any tears when the last provider of some of those services shut down.

Do I think it will end up preventing the clinic from opening at some point, no. Do I think it will put them and other developers on notice that you need to be up front with the City at least in Aurora, yeah. Is that a good thing, yeah.

Being forthcoming on the form is legally irrelevant in this case. Their offshoot LLC is subject to the same rules as one representing a for profit group is and seldom do they confirm even if it is almost a certainty who will be there. As long as the formal agreement is not completed, they are acting as would most private developers who might have a client who would desire not to be identified and without the signed contract, unknown is a generally accepted answer in such cases. A lot of times, prospective tenants want to delay identification for competitive reasons or just because they don’t want to commit until they know they have a property available.

How typical this is comes across in the transcript of the hearing. One of the Alderman said that he’d love to hear who the tenant is when the developer could identify them. When there aren’t any changes to the required zoning or restrictions, the identity is irrelevant. Even when there are changes, it has to be more than just not liking a potential tenant, but usually that can be gotten around.

A city’s leverage on a development only really exists if there is a change in the zoning requirements or a variance. Other than that, as long as someone meets the requirements, the city pretty much has to agree. Planned Parenthood, and a lot of other kinds of businesses, do this kind of thing to avoid the problem of being targeted. Generally restricting it would be illegal though because everyone should have the right to be treated equally based on the type of activity.

===. For too long the city has been all to happy to let developers do and change things with out saying boo.

Most cities have this problem and I’m sympathetic. But Aurora has developed good practices on its basic zoning rules. They look fine to me. What you are most likely talking about are when they grant variances or change zoning for ordinances and that is often where most of the problems come in when one is dealing with too lax of rules. No one pays attention to the hearing and then it’s too late.

In the case of a building that appears to fit all the rules of a medically zoned building, if Aurora had tried to stop the clinic because it was Planned Parenthood, they would have created a huge liability for themselves. And it’s why those trying to prevent the clinic are most likely going to fail. If they wanted to have the process stopped, they need to hire a lawyer with zoning experience to pour over the plans to see if anything is contrary to code. That’s their best chance. Trying to base the argument on the documents isn’t a winning strategy because the legal basis requires that property conforming to zoning be blind to who is occupying the property as long as the plans and the use fit the code(bad landords or the such being one area with a little bit of room, but that’s based on the number of violations or unpaid violations that exists). Finding a way that the use–which won’t happen–or the code is not met is the potential way to stop it, but I’m betting it’s pretty unlikely.

I would argue at least in part the hold is motivated by the forms and the statements to the city. If it too this for the city to develop a pair related to development, fine. For too long the city has been all to happy to let developers do and change things with out saying boo.